• The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to @SHaines here on the forum, or use the Contact Us form to message the Community Team.

    In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.

    Thanks!

Official Lance Armstrong Thread: Part 3 (Post-Confession)

Page 298 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
ChrisE said:
It is an average well known historical annual return on the DOW index, only to show you what is possible on average over time with no manipulation. To nitpick over those particular 8 years, as if the players were just sitting there with their thumbs up their *** while the market crashed in 08, instead of moving $ to different investments while that crash was oncoming, is ludicrous.

The DOW was at something like 8k in 2009, after the market crashed due to the mortgage issue and auto industry, among other things. What would be the present worth if that $ would have been put under his pillow for 2 years, then invested just in an index fund in 2009? What if he would have moved some of it to bonds, and some of it to something else stable in 07-08 then back to the market in 09, with it now around 16k?

It is much more complex than this but hopefully you get my drift, finally.

Some funds have been outpaced by he Dow & many since 08 are in double digit returns.

One noted and whereby the -1.8% means so very little. It can only be specific to the funds invested in. Not the index value (although I've never heard of the -1.8%).

But in the right fund 42% is good and not unachievable. If you had a free 7m a financial advisor would tell you to put 2m into a high risk fund, keep 1m, bank 3m at x% etc etc etc. Spread the risk.

Perhaps the most remarkable performance of 2013, however, belongs to former Goldman Sachs trader David Tepper, who has been setting a new standard for hedge fund managers. His track record has long been phenomenal, but since the financial crisis his returns have reached a new level. In 2013, the 56-year-old founder of Appaloosa Management outperformed the U.S. stock market and the vast majority of hedge fund managers, with his biggest fund posting net returns of more than 42%. Over the last five years, Tepper’s main hedge fund has generated annualized net returns of nearly 40%—and gross returns of some 50%. In what has almost become an annual tradition, he gave back some cash to his investors at the end of the year. Tepper made $3.5 billion in 2013.

In total, the 25 highest-earning hedge fund managers and traders made $24.3 billion in 2013. The lowest earning hedge fund managers on our list made $280 million last year.


http://www.forbes.com/sites/nathanv...hest-earning-hedge-fund-managers-and-traders/
 
Granville57 said:
What is perhaps implied in some of this, but not stated explicitly in the last few pages, is that if LA & Co. have to pay anything to SCA, that will be a competitive loss to Armstrong. The "sport" is this instance just happens to be money.

It's that competitive loss that burns Armstrong to no end.



The satisfaction derived by this may vary for some.

Well what has been presented today goes to show just how disgusting Armstrong is.

Not only has he has acquired 7m by fraud but he is likely to have made substantial profits on that illegally acquired money. Sickening. That is Wall St. behaviour 2009 (which many got away with).

Whilst SCA were naive to risk 7m for a gross profit of 600k considering the sports history but given that Armstrong was very frisky when it came to lawsuits they should have known better.

I hope they do get their money back. That deserve to. But Armstrong who's currently pretending to be poor is rotten to the core.

Evil, evil, evil. Every part of him.
 
Aug 13, 2009
12,855
1
0
Visit site
The Bank of Hog claims that is is easy to turn $7,000,000 into $14,600,000 in 8 years. He does deals like that all the time. Easy for a big time player like Hog

Bank of Hog gives Elevation Partners as an example of how easy it is to make 15%.
thehog said:
Elevation Partners turned $90m in 2009 into $1.5b in 3.5 years. That's just a tiny bit more than 8% :)

Hog claims they were "Well above average, well above" .....Their average annual return? 11% (Correction, it is actually 9%). Poor Hog can't tell the difference between investor inflows and investment performance. Hey, that's what happens when you are a fake banker

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303812904577291901182429724

Bank of Hog Claims he can get offer 3% on a CD at BoA.....but their best rate on a Jumbo CD is nothing close to that.

Bank of Hog claims Lance can "Offshore" His money and make 15%.....unfortunately he does not realize that Hawaii is still part of the US

thehog said:
offshoring it via Kristen and trusts into Hawaii.

Bank of Hog raves about how easy it is to make 15%. Even though The Bloomberg Hedge Funds Aggregate Index is down 1.8 percent from its July 2007 peak. Averages don't mean anything to Hog. Averages are for amateurs. Hog is a professional.......professional pretend banker.
 
This hypothetical return sidebar is specious at best.

We have estimates of Lance's net worth. Pretty clear he didn't double the SCA money.

Plenty of smart, rich folks got wiped out in the Global financial crisis.

Even those that didn't invest in Madoff.

Lance is arguably lucky his net worth is close to what it is.

Even if he did make a return on the $7m, paying SCA is going to hurt big time.

That is all that really matters.

Dave.
 
RaceRadio you’ve become too personal. I’m not sure what’s going on here but you’ve appeared to have lost the plot. It makes me seethe as well that Armstrong acquired the $7m but it’s a fact. I can see you’ve taken a lot of time to put your post together but you’re still missing the obvious.

As I stated several times; I have no idea what Armstrong did with the $7m. I offered some potentialities that he may have taken. Or he may not have. He could have also lost $7m in the markets as well as making a lot of money.

You seem so hung up on trying to beat me at the internet that you’ve lost sight of the obvious point in all of this regardless of what investment structure Armstrong used.

I’ll try one last time.

The year 2007;

• Armstrong gives SCA $600,000
• SCA gives Armstrong $7,000,000

Difference;

Armstrong up $6,400,000
SCA down $6,400,000

2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013 and 2014.

7 years on from the payout date.

Armstrong has the money and is free of interest or any repayment. 8 years, free money.

Therefore dependent on his investment strategy he is in effect investing “free money” into select markets and investments.

The Bloomberg Hedge Funds Aggregate Index is a poor choice in this given scenario.

Why you ask?

The index accounts for around 2500 different funds. Therefore I’m not sure why you’d attempt to use that in for this specific model. Simply by the fact that even with a free $7m courtesy of SCA you wouldn’t’ be investing in 2500 funds simultaneously over a given 8 year period! To do that you’d need $2.5 trillion dollars. That is why it’s called the “aggregated index” – as it combines almost all publicly known funds to give the an indication of how the market is performing in totality.

The most important part and what you have missed is “-1.8%” is not its present value or indicative of any other given period in time. The -1.8% refers to “from the peak of the market in 2007”.

That’s 2500 funds in 2007 (if they still exist) to the value is it today. 1.8% down across 2500 funds. However that is market peak; what was it between 2008 and 2009 or between a 3 month period or 6 month period?

Most importantly the markets in 2007 were at a global historical high. Being down from that period is actually not a bad thing. It doesn’t mean individual funds are losing money.

Does that make sense? The funds are not losing money but their total gains are down from a global historical high. See graphic below.

Now the other key here is depending on your strategy you wouldn’t look at aggregated list of 2500 funds. You’d look at the index that matches your investment strategy. There are 100’s of different indices. So if you were investing in Middle Eastern Funds only you may choose to use those specific indices. Or maybe India? As well as other financial research materials.

Here you can see a list of more specific indices that can be used to judge potential performance per specific investments strategies:

https://www.hedgefundresearch.com/hfrx_reg/index.php?fuse=login&hi

Additionally if you want to get real specific you can:

https://www.evestment.com/resources/indices/hfn-indices-methodology-and-description


Per Elevation Partners, it’s a good example. As I stated it was losing year on year. Bono was labeled the worst investor of the year! However market timing is everything. So if you put your investment into their fund prior to their investment in Facebook then you’re looking at percentages beyond the realms of believability.

http://www.inc.com/maeghan-ouimet/bono-scores-big-on-facebook-investment-elevation.html


Timing. This is what fund managers and investment strategists do. Hoards of young 20 something hunched over keyboards into the early hours of the morning attempting to predict where and importantly when to move money. Again you’ve simply taken the figure of EP and multiplied it across the timeframe. As ChrisE has kept trying to tell you. Investors with the sums of money Armstrong had don’t simply “park” their money in one fund or 2500 funds simaltaniously. Again timing.

Per CD its not something someone with $7m would do. As I explained I was showing it for demonstrative purposes. That by simply parking the entire $7m he’d earn 3% for doing nothing - $2m for free on your already free $7m! Simply by giving it to the bank. Easy money. On-line you can get a 5-year CD at 2.5% so as 7 years and actually speaking to the bank you’d get 3%+, easy.

Whilst I appreciate the effort you’ve put in to this but investments, mathematics and business strategy is clearly not something you’re very good at. Sorry. It’s embarrassing to be honest. You’re a smart guy but you’re just trying to beat me at the internet whereby you have little knowledge of the given subject.

I enjoy the debate but you’ve veered the topic off track because you’re angry at realizing Armstrong has probably gained more than he will lose at the table with SCA.. It sucks. I hate it too. But that’s life. The thread was discussing some good information and you've hijacked as you want a battle with me. Lets drop it.

To summarize;

• SCA gave Armstrong $6,400,000 for free.
• He has had that money for 8 years and counting with zero payments or interest.
• The Bloomberg Aggregate Index contains 2500 funds.
• No one person could possibly invest in all 2500 funds at one time.
• -1.8% value was measured from the peak of 2007. It is not its present day value.
• Investors select investments and funds based on a given strategy.
• Some funds have made 40% or more in 1 year. There are ones that have made 80%.
• Some have also lost. Lost big. 80% in one year.
• Timing in the market place is very important. When your money enters and when you take it out.
• Armstrong may have invested his $7m and lost it all. That is also possible.


Per the 1.8% point; this picture will help you. See where the Bloomberg index its at? 1.8% down from its peak in 2007. But its still providing significant returns. Addtionally imagine if you invested the money when the markets were rising in 2008 :rolleyes::cool:

Hope all this helps. But prefer if you just left the topic alone. Enough is enough.

aetxr8.jpg








Race Radio said:
The Bank of Hog claims that is is easy to turn $7,000,000 into $14,600,000 in 8 years. He does deals like that all the time. Easy for a big time player like Hog
Bank of Hog gives Elevation Partners as an example of how easy it is to make 15%. Hog claims they were "Well above average, well above" .....Their average annual return? 11% (Correction, it is actually 9%). Poor Hog can't tell the difference between investor inflows and investment performance. Hey, that's what happens when you are a fake banker
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303812904577291901182429724 Bank of Hog Claims he can get offer 3% on a CD at BoA.....but their best rate on a Jumbo CD is nothing close to that. Bank of Hog claims Lance can "Offshore" His money and make15%.....unfortunately he does not realize that Hawaii is still part of the US Bank of Hog raves about how easy it is to make 15%. Even though The Bloomberg Hedge Funds Aggregate Index is down 1.8 percent from its July 2007 peak. Averages don't mean anything to Hog. Averages are for amateurs. Hog is a professional.......professional pretend banker.
 
Aug 13, 2009
12,855
1
0
Visit site
Ok, we get it Hog. You are embarrassed because someone called you on your inventions and figured if you just turn on the nonsense fire hose nobody will notice you made a fool of yourself.

Give your Hors Categorie obfuscation today it is clear you have zero intention to actually engage on this topic legitimately.

Let us know when the Bank of Hog opens up, offering "Easy" 8% returns and 15% for Offshore deposits in Hawaii. I am sure people will be lining up. Maybe you should call Bob, he will have $12,000,000 to invest shortly
 
Race Radio said:
Ok, we get it Hog. You are embarrassed because someone called you on your inventions and figured if you just turn on the nonsense fire hose nobody will notice you made a fool of yourself.

Give your Hors Categorie obfuscation today it is clear you have zero intention to actually engage on this topic legitimately.

Let us know when the Bank of Hog opens up, offering "Easy" 8% returns and 15% for Offshore deposits in Hawaii. I am sure people will be lining up. Maybe you should call Bob, he will have $12,000,000 to invest shortly

I enjoy the debate. I could go all night if need be :)

If Bob does receive 12m he'll be a lucky man. But it won't be 12m will it? It will only be 5m.

You see 12m - 7m = 5m; you did realize that, yes?

And next time that Hog Finanical takes their annual bike trip I'll be sure to call you as I'll need a caddy for the bikebox :rolleyes:
 
May 27, 2012
6,458
0
0
Visit site
thehog said:
I enjoy the debate. I could go all night if need be :)

If Bob does receive 12m he'll be a lucky man. But it won't be 12m will it? It will only be 5m.

You see 12m - 7m = 5m; you did realize that, yes?

And next time that Hog Finanical takes their annual bike trip I'll be sure to call you as I'll need a caddy for the bikebox :rolleyes:

Because of the Hog Principle of Wrongness, we can clearly see that 7m figure you keep flogging is incorrect. I'll let you ponder why you cannot count the entire 7m to his credit when you do the real world numbers. You're a fake banker, so it should be easy to figure out what's at play that you are either willfully blind to, or are purposefully ignoring. Either way, your tiresome blathering will hopefully end by Tuesday.
 
Aug 13, 2010
3,317
0
0
Visit site
thehog said:
• Investors select investments and funds based on a given strategy.
• Some funds have made 40% or more in 1 year. There are ones that have made 80%.
• Some have also lost. Lost big. 80% in one year.
• Timing in the market place is very important. When your money enters and when you take it out.
Wow Hoggy, you really are a modern day renaissance man. So let me get this right...

Investors use a 'strategy' (did I spell that right?).
Investments might go up but...
they might also go down.
When you invest your money and when you take it out might be important.

Do you work in Finance? I only ask because you seem to know the complexities.
 
ChewbaccaD said:
Because of the Hog Principle of Wrongness, we can clearly see that 7m figure you keep flogging is incorrect. I'll let you ponder why you cannot count the entire 7m to his credit when you do the real world numbers. You're a fake banker, so it should be easy to figure out what's at play that you are either willfully blind to, or are purposefully ignoring. Either way, your tiresome blathering will hopefully end by Tuesday.

The disappointing thing here is that I've continually stated this may or may not been what Armstrong did with his 7m.

He may have lost it all. The '09 comeback may have been because of market loses.

On Friday RR was telling us exactly what happened to Horner's knee despite was said on public record by him and his Doctors.

I'm not trying to be wrong or right. That's the point. But you can't get away from the fact SCA gave him the money for free and did so with what looks to be a lack of due diligence. I can't help that. Yes that were heisted at arbitration but the engagement was suspect to start with. That's just a fact. It's not a Hog rightness or wrongness.

What I don't understand is why you and RR personally abuses me. The conversation between a few was interesting in relation to why SCA made the original engagement. RR inserted himself into that discussion and kept wanting it to break down to SCA winning. Life just doesn't work that way. SCA may win but might not recover all their loses. That's not me saying that. That's just how it may work out. They may get 200m.

But I do know that when others abuse or get personal it's because they don't have a meaningful reply to what was posted.

I ignored RR after my return but he kept replying to my posts. I would happily return to that way but appears he wants to engage with me but then doesn't like my replies and degrades conversions into personalities. Why?

Today is a perfect example. Just constant coming back throwing down information which is meaningless to the discussion. How many times did I need to say; this may have not occurred or may have? I can't help that LA has had 7m of SCA's money on the interest free terms that he did. It's a fact. I can't change it.

The best I get is "Cool Story Bro". That adds nothing to the discussion. I'd prefer if you and he added something more intelligent and meaningful but this thread isn't just about Armstrong losing and everyone else winning. The dynamics are too compex for it to be that simple.

Perhaps if the intention was to add to the conversation rather than trying to be right or king of the forum things would be different. I don't know.

Life.
 
Don't be late Pedro said:
Wow Hoggy, you really are a modern day renaissance man. So let me get this right...

Investors use a 'strategy' (did I spell that right?).
Investments might go up but...
they might also go down.
When you invest your money and when you take it out might be important.

Do you work in Finance? I only ask because you seem to know the complexities.

No it's doesn't work like this. Apparently you only get a flat -1.8% period. There are no longer fluctuations in the market.
 
May 27, 2012
6,458
0
0
Visit site
thehog said:
The disappointing thing here is that I've continually stated this may or may not been what Armstrong did with his 7m.

He may have lost it all. The '09 comeback may have been because of market loses.

On Friday RR was telling us exactly what happened to Horner's knee despite was said on public record by him and his Doctors.

I'm not trying to be wrong or right. That's the point. But you can't get away from the fact SCA gave him the money for free and did so with what looks to be a lack of due diligence. I can't help that. Yes that were heisted at arbitration but the engagement was suspect to start with. That's just a fact. It's not a Hog rightness or wrongness.

What I don't understand is why you and RR personally abuses me. The conversation between a few was interesting in relation to why SCA made the original engagement. RR inserted himself into that discussion and kept wanting it to break down to SCA winning. Life just doesn't work that way. SCA may win but might not recover all their loses. That's not me saying that. That's just how it may work out. They may get 200m.

But I do know that when others abuse or get personal it's because they don't have a meaningful reply to what was posted.

I ignored RR after my return but he kept replying to my posts. I would happily return to that way but appears he wants to engage with me but then doesn't like my replies and degrades conversions into personalities. Why?

Today is a perfect example. Just constant coming back throwing down information which is meaningless to the discussion. How many times did I need to say; this may have not occurred or may have? I can't help that LA has had 7m of SCA's money on the interest free terms that he did. It's a fact. I can't change it.

The best I get is "Cool Story Bro". That adds nothing to the discussion. I'd prefer if you and he added something more intelligent and meaningful but this thread isn't just about Armstrong losing and everyone else winning. The dynamics are too compex for it to be that simple.

Perhaps if the intention was to add to the conversation rather than trying to be right or king of the forum things would be different. I don't know.

Life.

It's not what he did with it, it's that in real numbers, he never got that much. As for the rest, cool story bro.
 
Jan 27, 2013
1,383
0
0
Visit site
What a soap opera. Lance has so many red dots on him now and you guys are speculating to the Nth degree. Who cares...get a life of your own. It's over, good job. Job done. Move on.

This horse is dead.
 
Jan 20, 2010
713
0
0
Visit site
RetroActive said:
What a soap opera. Lance has so many red dots on him now and you guys are speculating to the Nth degree. Who cares...get a life of your own. It's over, good job. Job done. Move on.

This horse is dead.

Agreed. It's a not a topic even worth debating now if the argument spends three or four pages going on about interest and investment return rates ffs.
 
Aug 13, 2010
3,317
0
0
Visit site
thehog said:
Again you've missed the point.

Averaged Hedge Fund's index value is not a fund in itself. Just like the Dow is not a fund. It's an index. A number representative of the average performance across all funds.

An investor doesn't invest in "all funds". They depending on their strategy select what they wish to invest in. The result of that could be well above average or below.

To reiterate. The Dow and Hedge Fund Indexs are just that. An index. They are not a fund.

Funds can outpace an index or dip below it. The Fortune 500 index was created because the 100 lost its effect as an index. It was no longer representative of the market.
Actually, you can buy into funds (ETFs) that mimic Indices like Dow Jones and, in fact, you can place money directly on its movement if you so wish. But I am sure you already knew that but avoided mentioning it for the benefit of myself and others.
 
Don't be late Pedro said:
Actually, you can buy into funds (ETFs) that mimic Indices like Dow Jones and, in fact, you can place money directly on its movement if you so wish. But I am sure you already knew that but avoided mentioning it for the benefit of myself and others.

In relation the point that was inflight; the index value is not a fund. Therefore -1.8% is not the performance of all individual funds across the board. Each fund will have its own value which may be equal to, or above or below that value.

Anyway dead horse. Topic dead. Pointless when it got personal and how Bob has his "winning hand" to play 10 years after the fact :cool:

Can't wait. Any time between now and in another 5 years.
 
RetroActive said:
P.S. If you want to do something interesting find out the who, what, where, when and why along with how the Pharmaceutical industry ties into this overall drama.

This I agree with. The odd part of Armstrong and universal healthcare was his reluctance to talk about it.

Myers-Squibb had him bought :)
 
Aug 13, 2009
12,855
1
0
Visit site
Don't be late Pedro said:
Actually, you can buy into funds (ETFs) that mimic Indices like Dow Jones and, in fact, you can place money directly on its movement if you so wish. But I am sure you already knew that but avoided mentioning it for the benefit of myself and others.

Smart move, I am embarrassed i got sucked into his nonsense.

Hog claims making 8% annually is easy, 15% if want to put it "Off Shore" in places like "Hawaii". When shown that it is actually not easy, that most investment professionals don't come close to that, that even his example of a "Well above average" fund did not come close to the 15% Hog promises....Hog whips out the rattle can filled with crazy and sprays the forum with pages of nonsense.
 
Race Radio said:
Smart move, I am embarrassed i got sucked into his nonsense.

Hog claims making 8% annually is easy, 15% if want to put it "Off Shore" in places like "Hawaii". When shown that it is actually not easy, that most investment professionals don't come close to that, that even his example of a "Well above average" fund did not come close to the 15% Hog promises....Hog whips out the rattle can filled with crazy and sprays the forum with pages of nonsense.

Let it go RR. You should be embarrassed.

You quite happily played "Bobs winning hand" and how he had some strategy with his original engagement with Armstrong to recover losses and more.

The guy is down a heck of a lot of money and probably never should have bet on Armstrong.

You were called out on that and since that point have lost the plot.

Just like Horner's knee. It's all just speculation. And you fill the gaps with a lot of hyperbole.

Now you're just getting personal because you've got nothing left to argue.

Sad. Because you actually post some good stuff at times. Get back to the facts.

But if you want keep telling us SCAs masterstroke was giving Armstrong a few million on interest free terms then be my guest. It's good humour :)
 
Jan 27, 2013
1,383
0
0
Visit site
I read this blog almost daily:
http://www.greaterfool.ca/

He claims 9% returns through diversified (index) investing. I agree with him about Canadian Real Estate but I think he's out to lunch on his macro-perspective. What does that have to do with doping in cycling?

Hey Lance! You're getting free investment advice now! Take advantage! Limited offer! They do it because they love you!

Lance is pathetic...but...end...holy $hit.